Builds and Commit Updates

[TWD]

So as far as I can tell there's nothing that says we can't create builds and share them with others. Obviously if Epic says it's not ok then I'll stop. Anyways here you go:

https://mega.co.nz/#!KAJ0hAoY!zirv1mN7g5CE-y6ADcXJjx6I42_vso_GgLcehSQbWTk

I can make small property changes if you want help testing things as well.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

FYI it's around a 500mb download and has the current state of the gameplay baked in. There are several maps that are mostly untextured. If you have questions on how to run it, let us know.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

64-bit only? Really? -.-

 

[ambershee]

Good luck finding 32-bit hardware that actually runs Unreal Engine 4. Less than 5% of users on Steam are still running 32-bit operating systems.

Intel stopped producing 32-bit desktop processors ten years ago when they introduced 64-bit Pentium 4s.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Good luck finding 32-bit hardware that actually runs Unreal Engine 4. Less than 5% of users on Steam are still running 32-bit operating systems.

Intel stopped producing 32-bit desktop processors ten years ago when they introduced 64-bit Pentium 4s.

.... shakes head bemusedly

With the exception of earlier semi failed processors like the Alpha, AMD broke the 64-bit processor onto the market 10+ years ago. Intel had to license the x64 architecture. (ironic role-reversal ftw) . Both AMD and intel are able to run 32-bit instruction on 64-bit processors. So neither haver technically stopped making 32-bit.

All windows OS's come in both 32-bit &64-bit.

Steam users are hardly a benchmark for judging hardware standards, as any intelligent person might suspect the average user of a major share market is of [SARCASM]gasp[/SARCASM] average intelligence.

Lastly and most notably:

This runs fine on my system and comes in both 32-bit & 64-bit versions...
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2368/unreal-engine-4-elemental-tech-demo/

My OS is 32-bit because I use certain legacy apps that don't operate well on a 64-bit OS (which I run rather then pay horrid fees to upgrade or pirate the new versions). I could run a dual boot, but the lack of 32-bit on there part seems silly when it is standard to include both.

Granted this isn't an official release but still...

 

[ambershee]

With the exception of earlier semi failed processors like the Alpha, AMD broke the 64-bit processor onto the market 10+ years ago. Intel had to license the x64 architecture. (ironic role-reversal ftw).

Nobody said this wasn't the case. Who are you arguing with? Intel adopted 64-bit instruction sets after AMD's Opteron, hence the example.

Both AMD and intel are able to run 32-bit instruction on 64-bit processors. So neither haver technically stopped making 32-bit.

Nobody said this wasn't the case either, but the hardware is not 32-bit. The 64-bit instruction set is a superset of the original 32-bit set, so old instructions can still be used without issue. This is more or less just semantics...

Steam users are hardly a benchmark for judging hardware standards

If you have a better resource for judging hardware standards amongst PC gamers, I'm all ears. Noone ever said it was infallible, but I doubt you have a better or more representative source.

My OS is 32-bit because I use certain legacy apps that don't operate well on a 64-bit OS

You're an exception, not the rule. I'm expecting games to increasingly drop 32-bit clients over the coming few years, as they're going to start using more than 2GB (or even 3GB) of memory, which 32-bit operating systems won't reliably address.

Whoever compiled this version of the build probably didn't bother building a 32-bit binary, if there's a build configuration to do so. All developers will be running 64-bit operating systems, because the SDK requires it. The public releases will probably have a 32-bit binary.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

herp derp face saving attempt.

Fixed it for you.

Fact is 64-bit is not adopted to the point that 32-bit is even close to on it's way out yet. So not supporting it intentionally is less then bright. Whoever compiled it (my impression was TWD) may not have the ability to compile in 32-bit or it may have been an oversight. The latter being why pointed it out.

64-bit offers very little in a sense of performance for games themselves. Windows benefits in the form of native max ram supported.

 

[Al]

lol ^

 

[TWD]

The project outputs a 64 bit exe. If you want a 32 bit exe, tough. I'm not going to waste my time, although I'm sure it may be possible to get visual studio to make a 32 bit.

 

[leilei]

lol ^

Considering one of my near-decade-old 'retro' PCs is 64-bit... lol


As a long-time 64-bit user I never found a dependence on any particular 16-bit application I can't run. Usually heading for the following 32-bit version, even early, still works out for me. There's only one example for me in this: Cool Edit 96

Can just VirtualPC/DOSBox the rest. PC emulation/virtualization is crazy fast these days, and all those newfangled CPUs have special virtualization extensions for that purpose.

The only thing keeping 32-bit CPUs alive are Apple. Most of the 32-bit users polled on Steam might only be the Mac users anyway

 

[ambershee]

Fact is 64-bit is not adopted to the point that 32-bit is even close to on it's way out yet.

You may want to back up that statement with something.

Games are already shipping without 32-bit binaries - Watch Dogs is an example. Landmark and Everquest 2 will not have a 32-bit binary, Titanfall doesn't install on a 32-bit operating system, and Frostbite engine has now gone entirely 64-bit, so you're also missing out on Battlefieldin future, (the Hardline beta doesn't support a 32-bit OS, though it may ship with support). Planetside 2 is going to drop it's 32-bit client. Strider required a 64-bit OS, and I'm sure there are plenty of other games.

32-bit is already on it's way out.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Hey look a gif of you guys when presented with logic and facts.

I'm not saying 32-bit is better. It is just still the greater market share, albeit it is close, but as long as a substantial portion of people stick to it it will remain common to compile as 32-bit simply because a 64-bit PC can do both. A simple google search shows that it isn't that difficult to do even. But if you can't be bothered that is your business.

 

[Al]

Right. If you can't upgrade, take your own advice. Just don't expect anyone to care when you complain.

But if you can't be bothered that is your business.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Yet another thread hijacked by a BUF e-penis war.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Right. If you can't upgrade, take your own advice. Just don't expect anyone to care when you complain.

Who was complaining. If I want I can do a dual boot install (I believe I mentioned this already). My point was that it is still standard procedure to release a 32bit version of something primarily and offer 64bit as a secondary.

The fact that I am running a 32 bit OS was an example that there are still people doing so (a majority in fact, even if not a majority on steam).

My new rig has is an 8-Core AMD FX-9590 Black Edition with 8GB of ram. I am back to using my Nvidia7950 while I decide on a new card. If it wasn't for shadermodel 10.0(nvidia400 series and later cards support it) UT would run great on it. I snagged my wife's 560ti to test the tech demo last week but she threw a shit fit when she found out. Though there is a hack to get around the shadermodel 10.0 issue for new games, I am more then happy to wait for my new card (whatever it be) partially because I envision that it does horrible things to the visual quality and stability to pretend a card is something isn't and partially because I am a patient person.

What I can't figure out is why you people have such a case of rectal cranial inversion over the whole 64bit vs 32bit thing. Seriously. Games don't receive that big of an advantage. Most applications don't either. Hell, many applications Firefox for example, don't even offer a 64bit version,... but you can get one for IE.

 

[Al]

Yet another thread hijacked by a BUF e-penis war.

Wat? Using up-to-date technology is starting an e-penis war?

Alrighty then.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

LOL. Settle down.

You can package a 32 bit version, but what's the point? IT takes quite a while to build the package and it outputs to 64-bit by default. Most people can run a 64-bit build.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

LOL. Settle down.

You can package a 32 bit version, but what's the point? IT takes quite a while to build the package and it outputs to 64-bit by default. Most people can run a 64-bit build.

Not accounting for everyone who can otherwise play goes against my sense of fair-play and/or my self-centered desire to get as many people on board with a new UT as possible. Also ensuring that this pops up at the top of the boards for as long as possible means that the potential to drag in more people is greater.

Most gamers on steam? Yes.
Most people on this forum? yes.
Most people? No.

 

[-AEnubis-]

Good luck finding 32-bit hardware that actually runs Unreal Engine 4.

The original point, backwards compatibility aside, being exactly this.

Even if you are running 32bit software, you've admitted yourself to running 64bit capable hardware. The reality here is, we aren't dealing with finished, RC software. Optimization and porting is typically a latter development step. As such, it should be no surprise that this is only, currently, available in the most popular format, 64bit.

Someone seems to be developing a pattern of argument for the sake of argument.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

My first comment.

64-bit only? Really? -.-

The response.

Good luck finding 32-bit hardware that actually runs Unreal Engine 4. Less than 5% of users on Steam are still running 32-bit operating systems.

Intel stopped producing 32-bit desktop processors ten years ago when they introduced 64-bit Pentium 4s.

Nobody said anything about having outdated hardware. Old rule: When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
...

The original point, backwards compatibility aside, being exactly this.

Even if you are running 32bit software, you've admitted yourself to running 64bit capable hardware. The reality here is, we aren't dealing with finished, RC software. Optimization and porting is typically a latter development step. As such, it should be no surprise that this is only, currently, available in the most popular format, 64bit.

Someone seems to be developing a pattern of argument for the sake of argument.

A by-product. Primarily speaking I merely responded to poorly thought out slams and arguments in favor of an all 64bit roll-out. I am neither hurt by the lack of 32bit nor do I stand to gain squat if it was added.